Ken Bigley.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I'm now very well used to the Robinson/Parry-esque Patronising menatality thank you very much if indeed you are not he ?

---

WTF?

Steve M

Fritz,

As I never understand a word you say, I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped mentioning me in your posts.

Thanks.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cliff Patterson:
Hi BrianD

I think Pingu is right about opinion polls

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_2/11_poll.html

shows that only 13 % were in favour of the war beforehand (Feb 2003) 70% were not convinced of the case for war.


Cliff

---

Hi Cliff

I looked at the URL you posted. You specifically mentioned only 13% were in favour of war, making this number appear small by also mentioning that 70% were undecided. Why didn't you go on to say that only 9% were actually against war? That looks like a minority firmly against war, with a whole load of people sitting on the fence.

Here's a quote from the URL...

quote:

---

If Tony Blair had UN backing for war instantly his problem would be solved 82% would back military action. Without any UN support only 28% would back an attack alongside the Americans.

---

That the 'approval for war' percentage suddenly jumps if the nod is received from the UN tells me that the majority of people understood that Saddam Hussein and his regime had to be removed. That the figure without UN support is low tells me that people have a concern at our relationship with the US, not with whether we should remove Saddam or not, which appears to be a no-brainer. A lot of people were happy with the concept of the invasion of Iraq but only with the perceived security of the UN giving a green light. Due to various self-interest issues that was never going to happen, was it?

Pingu said......

quote:

---

At no stage have I said that the majority of British people didn't want the removal of Saddam Hussain.

---

I know you haven't, but can you please tell me how this was to be achieved without the use of force?

Imo, it has been the case all along that the majority of people accepted the need to remove Saddam, because it was clear that the man was a tyrant and his regime was a disgrace to humanity. It is also clear to me that some people don't want to face up to the realism of what this takes. You can't have it all ways, he was never going to just disappear as if by some miracle.

Getting back to the poll mentioned in the URL above. I'm often amazed how much credence people can lend these things given that they can be used to present almost anything a person wants. Look at this from the same poll:
"21% of the public - thats one in five - thought his evidence was fabricated."

It's almost shouting out about what one in five people think, as though this is amazing. What this tells me is that four people out of five believe the opposite, that evidence was not fabricated, yet the writer highlights the thing the other way around. Agenda's spring to mind....

[This message was edited by BrianD on Sat 16 October 2004 at 15:33.]

Some interesting extracts from the same poll:

Statement: 'There may be a case for taking military action against Saddam Hussein at some point - it depends on the circumstances.' = 71% agree.

Statement: 'Under no circumstances should Britain support or take part in any military action against Saddam Hussein.' = 11% agree

Does anybody find these next two of any significance:

Q. 'If there is a war against Iraq and Britain takes part, which of these possible consequences do you fear most?'
A. The deaths of Iraqi civilians = 9%
A. Terrorist reprisals against Britain = 30%

Q.'And which of these consequences do you fear next most strongly?'
A. The deaths of Iraqi civilians = 14%
A. Terrorist reprisals against Britain = 30%

At this stage I would suggest that many people were in favour of ousting Saddam by force, but only with the backing of the UN because they were frightened for their own {edited} skins, believing that UN backing would cause Britain not to become a major target for reprisals along with the USA.

Brian

[This message was edited by BrianD on Sat 16 October 2004 at 17:34.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:
At this stage I would suggest that many people were in favour of ousting Saddam by force, but only with the backing of the UN because they were frightened for their own cowardly skins, believing that UN backing would cause Britain not to become a major target for reprisals along with the USA.

---

I find this rather offensive. I was against a non-UN backed war because such a war was, and is, illegal - unless the perpetrators were under threat from the country against which the war was to be waged. Not because my skin is cowardly. We mayn't have been in the majority in the UK - although we probably were, and a great many of us marched and spoke out - but there was such a majority amongst world leaders. Which was why Bush gave up on getting a new resolution. He would've lost.

Regime change is not, was not, never has been, and never will be, a legitimate reason for war by one country (or a small coalition) against another that has not threatened it/them. Blair himself said this.

Not one of the reasons given by Bush/Blair for this war (several of which have turned out to be completely wrong in any case) could not be used by, say, Syria as a legitimisation for invading Israel.

Just because "we" are "right, and "they" are "wrong" cannot make such action correct. Everyone thinks that "they" are "right". Frankly in Bush's case I doubt he would know the difference.

This is why increasingly many other countries and people around the world hate America (and now the UK) with a passion. Strong enough to give their lives for.

The end- the removal of Saddam Hussein - may in itself have been desirable, but in no way did it justify the means by which it was achieved.
And there were/are other ways: such as:

Sanctions - worked in the case of South Africa.

OR

Doing cock-all and watching people die - the method of choice in the case of countries that have no resources to offer the west like Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Rwanda.

The UN was probably the only good thing to have emerged as a result of the Second World War.
Bush and Blair have undermined it completely.

I cannot believe these two leaders are still in power. I find it difficult enough to comprehend that they have not resigned, having got it so badly wrong, but that their peoples appear poised to re-elect them both is unfathomable to me.

Justifying an action on the basis that one of its side-effects was desirable is rather like suggesting it's a good plan to blow up an opera house full of people because the acoustics are rubbish anyway and the conductor beats up his wife.

Having been against an illegal war - irrespective of whether one of its outcomes was desirable - does not make me a coward. I think you should withdraw that.

[This message was edited by rodwsmith on Sat 16 October 2004 at 18:35.]

I said 'many people', I've never heard of you, I've no idea if you're a coward or not.

You've seen the figures I took from this poll. 9% were against the war out of concern the killing of innocent Iraqi's while 30% were against it for fear of reprisals. What does that tell you about the people responding to the poll?

I'll withdraw the word cowardly, but I'm struggling to think of an alternative given the *facts* presented by this poll.

BTW I find a lot of things on here rather offensive, but never yet has anybody responded by modifying a comment or apologising for a comment. Take note that this is what I've now done.

BrianD said "That the 'approval for war' percentage suddenly jumps if the nod is received from the UN tells me that the majority of people understood that Saddam Hussein and his regime had to be removed"

That's very dubious logic to say the least.

A more reasonable interpretation might be that if you cannot persuade the international community (or at least a reasonable proportion of them) that starting a war is justified, legal and required then we shouldn't do it.

"What does that tell you about the people responding to the poll?"

That they fear being blown up more than they fear the death of Iraqi civilians. Is this not perfectly normal?

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:
BTW I find a lot of things on here rather offensive, but never yet has anybody responded by modifying a comment or apologising for a comment. Take note that this is what I've now done.

---

Thank you.

As with so many other issues, people will never agree on this. There will always be ways to find statistics, or interpretations of statistics, to support just about anything.

There is also a very real and important difference between cowardice and fear.

Rod

(I edited my earlier message to correct a spelling mistake.)

quote:

---

That's very dubious logic to say the least.

---

Not at all.

Pingu is claiming that the majority of British people were against an invasion. This is not the case. The majority of British people were undecided about an invasion without UN approval, and were well in favour of an invasion with UN approval. The percentage of British people against an invasion no matter what, is very small.

I believe the desire for this UN approval (people responding to the poll) is more to do with the image portrayed of our relationship with the USA than to do with people worried about legalities and such. The majority of people Matthew have probably never given a second thought to the legalities of the invasion. But the majority of people resent how Blair is portrayed as a poodle for Bush, so they want to move away from the US and closer to the UN. Hence they want UN backing for an invasion. Not everybody thinks as deeply about things as those on this forum and we are talking about the majority of the British people here, that's over 55 million people or so. Do you really believe that a majority of that number understand, and are concerned about the legalities of an invasion?

UN approval for an invasion would also spread the load of potential reprisal attacks as I said earlier.

quote:

---

That they fear being blown up more than they fear the death of Iraqi civilians. Is this not perfectly normal?

---

Yes, perfectly normal. I just wish some people would stop pretending they're concerned about the death of Iraqi civilians since what they're really concerned about is the increased risk they're under. As proven by the figures presented in that poll.

Edited, but nothing added or removed.

[This message was edited by BrianD on Sat 16 October 2004 at 21:08.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rodwsmith:

Thank you.

---

You're welcome, there was no personal insult aimed directly toward you. As with many other people, I think I find this quite an emotive subject.

quote:

---

There is also a very real and important difference between cowardice and fear.

---

Yes, I agree.

What strikes me now is how this thread has developed in exactly the way I didn't want it to, as I described to Pingu.

There is really little point imo in dragging up issues such as the legalities of the invasion. It has happened, now we need to move on.

Mistakes have been made and I'd like the politicians pay for that as much as anybody else, but now isn't the time. This is the time to try to help the people of Iraq, to identify, confront and attempt to solve the overall problem of what is happening in the Middle East.

Nobody wants to talk about that, do they? Moaning about Blair and Bush is just too easy.

Rod,

I was against a non-UN backed war because such a war was, and is, illegal

It wasn't illegal, so don't worry.

Cheers

Don

Alexg,

there is plenty to suggest that it was.

Alex, the whole point is that some people just make that statement as if it were a fact. It isn't.

It would be a complete waste of time to post "suggestions" as to why it was/wasn't illegal. Perhaps if someone is prosecuted we'll find out.

I'm not worried. So don't worry .

Cheers

Don

BrianD said "I believe the desire for this UN approval (by people responding to the poll) is more to do with the image portrayed of our relationship with the USA than to do with people worried about legalities and such"

Well you are of course entitled to your opinion. I think it more likely that a desire for a lot of people to see a second UN resolution reflected their unease at the whole process. Unease which seems more than justified in retrospect.

"But the majority of people resent how Blair is portrayed as a poodle for Bush"

I think the majority of people actually think Blair *is* a poodle to Bush.

In general, your argument that disquiet about how the US/UK relationship was being portrayed was the reason for people wanting a legitimising resolution before starting a war is, in my opinion, risible.

"Not everybody thinks as deeply about things as those on this forum"

LOL!

"I just wish some people would stop pretending they're concerned about the death of Iraqi civilians since what they're really concerned about is the increased risk they're under"

For all our faults, the history of the British people is full of examples of them being both compassionate to the suffering of others and willing to bear terrible hardship and danger to support what is unquestionably right. I think it does a great diservice to the British for you to suggest otherwise.

"As proven by the figures presented in that poll"

Nothing was "proven" in that poll, least of all your rather odd conclusions.

Don said "It wasn't illegal, so don't worry"

Here's Robin Cook on matters legal:

"There is another awkward question that has become more acute with each new revelation, and which will not go away until it is answered. What does the government now think was the legal basis for war?

The initial opinion of the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, was that invasion would require a second UN resolution. This was an opinion that he only revisited when it became evident that there would be no second resolution. At this point Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, resigned and subsequently protested that "the conflict in Iraq was contrary to international law". This week we learned that two other colleagues resigned along with her, which must have left a lot of empty desks in the legal department.

The attorney general himself still appeared unsure of his ground, but his dilemma was eased by the suggestion from Downing Street that he outsourced the drafting of his opinion to a law professor with a record of support for war. As a result the nation went to war against the advice of Whitehall's experts in international law and on the strength of an opinion from a professor at the LSE.

The government has resisted publishing the text that resulted, presumably because even it would reveal awkward reservations and legal quibbles, but a precis was produced as a parliamentary answer. What is striking is the centrality that disarmament plays in it as the justification for war. Thus Iraq is held to be in material breach of the ceasefire resolution because it had not fulfilled "its obligations to disarm". There is a logical, inescapable conclusion from this chain of reasoning. If Iraq had in reality fulfilled its disarmament obligation there was no legal authority for the invasion. "

"Does the legality of the war still matter over a year after the event? The only responsible answer must be yes.

In the first place we are still struggling with the legacy of our decision to conquer Iraq and the incompetence of an occupation that has compounded the original misjudgment. Iraq may have been no threat to us at the time of the war, but we have certainly turned it into one as a base for international terrorism. Instead of delivering a modern Iraq as a model for the region, we have made Iraq a source of instability in a Middle East that looks much more precarious than two years ago.

But it also matters because the fabric of orderly relations between nations, the strength of human rights law and cooperation against terrorism are built on respect for international law. We cannot demand that respect from other nations if we ourselves do not give it a higher priority than we appear to have done in reaching our decision to go to war in Iraq."

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1327800,00.html

AlexG noted that some might ask "'if it was illegal, why isn't anyone being prosecuted'.

There may well be some kind of legel challenge at some point.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
is that some people just make that statement as if it were a fact. It isn't.

---

I take it I am "some people".
Well I can point out that some other people state the reverse without quantifying it, and they are right only because they think they are.

If countries invading other countries without just cause or international consensus of opinion is not illegal, then it damned well should be.

The pronouncements of legality - disputed by many UN members in any case - by a bunch of vested-interest lawyers either side of the pond were made before the Iraq Survey Group formally confirmed that there were no WMD. As this indicates that Saddam HAD complied with the resolutions used to indict him, the lawyers might be forced to think again.

quote:

---

So don't worry.

---

Well you might not be worried, but I find this whole situation intensely worrying. I should have thought all right thinking people would be at least mildly concerned.

Matthew

I see you're back to the cowardly tactic of insulting people from behind the safety of your computer.

Sigh!

Is anybody here an expert on international law?

I do not know if the invasion was legal or illegal, so how come some of you non-international law experts are so sure?

I doubt very much whether any of you have spent the time it would take to wade through the thousands of pages of legal documents needed to make a determination on this issue. Assuming you had the intelligence and/or understanding, which, if you aren't an expert on international law you do not have, you cannot possibly know for sure whether the invasion was legal or illegal.

So, now what? Does hounding the politicians with this question over and over help the people in Iraq?

Alexg,Matthew, Rod,

You won't prove that its illegal, because it isn't.

A good prosecuter and a skilled lawyer might make a case, but I doubt it.

You can bring all your arguments to bear, but its pointless. Robin Cook is no more a skilled lawyer than you or I, etc etc.

If we're not careful, I'll start using the silly nonsense that both Tony B and his dear wife Cherie, are BOTH lawyers, and she (apparantly) is very skilled. So they should know what the're talking about, so there.....nananeenana....

Oh yet it is, oh no it isn't......

Alex, take care, its usually comediens who speak these lines, and one of them (not me) is usually perceived as a clown....

Cheers

Don

Now, If people started putting "IMHO" after their claim that the war was illegal, so would I. But of course, in both cases that goes without saying.

To Forum Members.....Apologies....

Bigmick,

Don, a bloke repairing his guttering and falling off the ladder.......If you still think that these deaths would be no more than an accidental loss of life then I am genuinely bewildered and as we clearly differ on this there’s no point in continuing to bore ourselves and everybody else to death.

You were clearly very emotional when you dreamed up that rant which is too ridiculous and convoluted to warrant a further response. Particularly since BrianD has clearly understood my point and rather elegantly tried to help you get it as well.



Can you specify why you believe them to be hearsay?

What I actually said was "You have hearsay evidence about one particular incident."

You weren’t there. To you it is hearsay, believe me. I've been in several situations which the press manage to report inaccurately. If what you reported is accurate, the pilot and ground controllers will no doubt be prosecuted.



Are you saying that US/UK military discipline is more rigorous than that of al-zarqawi?

Again, what I actually said was " Those found guilty of such crimes will be punished by us. The terrorists who perpetrate murder will not be tried, never-mind be punished by their leaders."



As I remarked earlier Don, if you don’t even know what credibility is....

...."if" = big (and wrong) assumption on your part, so, no need for you to worry over this little one any longer.



if you don’t even know what credibility is or even how it’s spelt, you recently shouldn’t be trying to pass judgement.

Well, its not too important to me if the odd spelling mistake or grammatical error creeps into a post. However, its clearly crucial to you and others who delight in this mindless (but, I'm assured, satisfying) task of getting trivial detail right. Clearly this is your (claimed) speciality. I have come across one or two of these sad people in my time, usually middle-aged failures in life, who seem to believe that the endless search for monumental accuracy will be seen as a triumphant short-cut to the board-room. Dream-on.....

Just try reading your words again......

or even how it’s spelt, you recently shouldn’t be trying to pass judgement.

Never mind shooting yourself in the foot, you've gone and shot yourself in the bloody head. Fortunately for you, what passes for a brain is still intact, safely up your ass.

Cheers

Don

AlexG,

There is no need for you to put yourself in the position of clown, which is why I said "take care".

Now there was also no need for you to have asigned the role of pantomime villain, which you clearly got wrong.

Perhaps I could persaude you to read my "clown" post again, and you will see that it contains an element of light-hearted humour....

Cheers

Don

Glad you said that Alex, I was wondering...

This forum can certainly get a bit fraught, but to lose sleep over it would be just too much. Think what would happen to Fritz and Mick Parry for a start.

Personally I take it all with a very large pinch of Shiraz.

Santé!

Rod

BrianD said "I see you're back to the cowardly tactic of insulting people from behind the safety of your computer"

I haven't insulted anyone and can't for the life of me think why you would think that.

FWIW I note that you did just call me a coward. And you didn't answer my point either, other than with this non-sequitor.

Don -- Of course the legality of the war is a matter for at least *some* debate. Your argument looks very weak though as a) there are lots of widely available, strong arguments from well informed, qualified people that it is illegal and b) very few from people still arguing it was legal. If there are lots of the latter it would proably help your case if you could say what they are.

Besides, you would, presumably, go beyond your "No it isn't IMHO" and agree that we went to war on a legal footing that was at the very least controvertial and contested by significant numbers of perfectly qualified people.

Matthew

Tom,

Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate what you say, and accept your critiscism

It was with decent people like yourself in mind that I prefaced the post the way I did.

Cheers

Don

Matthew,

You are trying to "edge" or "nudge" your case (as usual)

No, I wouldn'd agree that "we went to war on a legal footing that was at the very least controvertial and contested by significant numbers of perfectly qualified people"

I might say "we went to war on a legal footing that was considered by some to be controvertial and contested by a number of qualified people and by a number of people with self interest at stake"

Cheers

Don

I can sense there is little point in arguing about exactly how much controversy there was.

I still think your argument is very weak though. And that on the basis of the widespread press and news coverage of the issues, a conclusion that the war in all probability was illegal is a reasonable one. And, unless I am missing a chunk of media where the opposite case is put, it seems that still arguing for it being legal is not nearly so compelling.

Matthew